Civics Improvements Suggestions

Just a side note:
Migration was always present throughout history, since there were always nomadic tribes, who were wandering instead of living in one place. An area is easily populated with both type of "citizens".
So Restricted Borders as a first civic of its category is a nonsense.
 
45°38'N-13°47'E;13454089 said:
I guess we're not talking about nomadic tribes. Maybe calling it Limited travels clarifies better than Restricted.

Aren't we talking about a governmental policy? Something that the government "controls"? (In this case it lacks the ability to control it.)
Limited travels is rather a state of the world. I agree that people didn't travel much, but (I repeat) not because of governmental "laws".

P.s:
Spoiler :
It is funny what "fights" we do about some words sometimes. :)
 
45°38'N-13°47'E;13454109 said:
Maybe it's a state of the world but definitely government doesn't encourage travels with that civic, if you want to look it this way.

...neither they have the power to do the opposite ;)
 
Thanks for understanding youmakemefart, that's exactly what I was trying to point out. I agree with you on your historical analysis of course, but RAND, to balance things and make them simpler, puts every starting civ at a point before Trade was common in 6000 BC (and not when it really was, some more thousands of years before). It's just because of the limits of the game, I wasn't trying to rewrite history at my will.
 
Pre-Scriptum:
English is not my native language, I apologize in advance if there are grammatical errors or syntax!



May i speak in all this? xD
I think border question is important but it is not the main question ihmo.
So, let's do a little recap,
we have:

Government
Legislative
Society
Economy
Religion
Military
Welfare
Foreign Policy

And now we want to add border question on it. That's ok but, i think missing something important on all of this.
We can speak about government, about society etc, but, where is the ideology on those civics?
For Ideology i mean the content of the laws, i mean the character or nature or behavior of the whole nation.
I think we have to do a step back and think about it.
On this latest AND releases (i'm just playing with 819) Empires are totally desappears, i have never accepted the removal of 'fascism' civic but ok, maybe they could put in something related i thought, but i'm still waiting xD
Empires have existed until XX sec, why we have to give them up totally? For what? "Despotism" civic? It is all wrong.

Despotism civic IS NOT Fascism/Totalitarism.
Infact, a large number of philosophers (from Aristotle to Hegel) see "despotism" as the immediatly step forward from the "state of nature" so it is the most primitive form of state government (for example Montesquieu "De L'Esprit des Lois " book 1 chapter 5, and expecially book 2 chapter 8,9,10 and 11; or book 5 chapter 14,15,16,17 and so on).
So, if despotism is the most primitive form of state goverment (and infact in the game we discover it very soon, it is not suitable for that kind of task in industrial/modern era, really not).

If you don't want to re-enter fascism form of state, that is ok, but we can do another thing, we can think about to make a new civics type, "Ideology", and according to political philosophers from Thomas Hobbes to G.W.F Hegel we can built it easily and with consistency.

We could use Ideology civic to give to the entire nations a deeper "psychologism", a coherent and logical behavior of nations.

So, assuming that all this is just a suggestion and i'm totally open to receive your critical, i allowed myself to do this new civic section following in the footsteps of the political philosophers.

Ideology :
Let's recap this, we can use Idelogy to describe the character, the behavior and the set of ideas shared by the nation. And, as we know, the "mirror content" of the ideas of a nation is reflected in the law. The laws are the mirror of civilization, and every civilization than his time has a different mirror.
But we should not confuse us with the question of legislative power, we're not talking about the "form" but the "substance" of the law, just as understanding substantia, substance, that is what lies beneath and holding the entire apparatus of the law, and then its content.


Before i begin, in these descriptions i speak of "law."
Here mean "law" the way of Montesquieu and other philosophers Enlighteners and contractarians: * The law has the characteristic of having a main character of fixity. The law is constant and stable. *
This means that the law can not be changed instantly and at your liking. If this happens, it means that it is not a true law, but it is a "decree".
According to this view, for us moderns, "law" it can be understood as a large complex of stable laws and these may vary only by following a long process. (We could also call it "constitution" but then we risk creating confusion).
The law therefore is a limit, a stop to the central power, and this reflects the vision of the world in that particular historical period, which we call ideology.



1 - State of Nature
This is the primary set, according to contractualism philosophers (expecially Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, Rosseau and Kant), STATE OF NATURE is the absence of a state. There are no laws, there is no political structure. Is the dawn of civilization.

2 - Laws
In this case, I consulted the "Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Geschichte" of Hegel. He thought that the next step to the state of nature was a state supported by laws. On its phenomenological way, however, a State does not immediately reach a way of a State founded on "Reason" (he called a state founded on "Reason" Zustand Ethik, "State Ethics").
But before the "State Ethics" there are several intermediate forms, including precisely a State which is not a state based on "reason" ("laws of reason") but the "laws" that make up what he called "abstract right" . The example of these states is precisely that of Ancient Athens and especially ancient Rome where it was born and reaches its climax, in fact, the "private law" next to the criminal law.
The laws of ancient Athens and those of ancient Rome were a masterpiece of law.
Unlike the states of nature (or those who are just one step after the state of nature, such as the despotic East) states that rely on Laws ensure the recognition of private property and from this the recognition of the other person (and therefore of the external world outside of the same person) the first and real form of State, for Hegel, is made here. It is the state of nature that despotism, as we teach philosophers contractarians, has no laws. And a state without laws is not a real state.


3 - Dominion
I chose the term Dominion to indicate one thing: "Dominion" is not simply a synonymous of "Empire", here it must be emphasized one thing, and that is the corruption of the state founded by the same laws.
In this case, I examine the texts of Machiavelli (ie "The Prince" and "Discourses on the First Decade of Titus Livius").
In his philosophical apparatus, Machiavelli praises every where in the political splendor of Rome, but a precise historical moment of Rome, that the Roman Republic.
The fact is that when Julius Caesar gets the power and laid the first foundations of the empire, the whole meaning of the law is overturned. Republic means "Res Publica" "object of the public or public power" and meant that all potentially had the ability to enter into the merits of public affairs. This is the meaning of a state that is based on the laws (what we've seen before).
Julius Caesar and his successors instead destroy the republic and the deeper meaning of its laws and replace it with another vision, the dominion of course, that the State is yes based on laws, but these laws say one thing and that is that the state belongs to a one person, the Emperor.
Dominion means a state founded on the laws that the legislative center of the universe, however, recognize it as a single person to which all must obey, through the law.


4 - Divine Right
This type of legislative structure is developed especially since the Middle Ages.
Similarly to the Dominion, the universality of the law it no more depends by result of the history of peoples, but because it is assumed that the justice of the law comes only from God.
And so, the right to rule obviously not up to the citizens, but it is up to only one (or a few) on the condition that they are in perfect communion with the divinity and religion. From all this comes the whole new vision of the law, the law is now a
religious tool, to govern internally (psychologically) and externally through public punishments, inquisitions and torture the citizens those who trample the laws of the state, which in more radical cases, coincide with the religious laws themselves.
The people no longer have any authority to enter into the political affairs (as in Dominion), but now they no longer have the ability to think and act freely and critically. The states that are founded on the divine law do not allow freedom of thought and reason. And the rulers of these states must be accepted by the religious authorities.


5 - Social Pact
The idea of ​​modern social pact or social contract comes to us, by modern contractarians philosophers, especially by Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau.
Although they have different ideas, they travel the same path and that is the centrality of the citizen in the formation of the state.
Leaving aside the theory of Hobbes that flows into Absolutism (although it is an absolutely different from the previous absolutism, because it was founded by the people and for the people, the universal figure of the absolute monarch as a single "representative" of the people) would like to focus on Locke and Rosseau.
A state founded by a social pact is a state that is defined as "a state of law" (or State of Rights"). Which means a state founded by citizens and for citizens. The state is no longer owned by a single one, the state is no longer owned by the Church or religion, but the state belongs solely and exclusively to the citizens, who formed it by joining together through a "pact" or "contract" in which they are established the fundamental laws.
First among these fundamental laws is precisely the issue of sovereignty: in the states of right the sovereignty belongs to the people joined together by the pact.
As you know, liberalism was born and developed in these states.
The most striking historical examples are just the English Revolution before and the American and French Revolution after.
In the State of Rights, citizens not only claim of having their rights respected, but they as a people, the founder of civilization, they claim that the power of government should be formally legitimized by the people through the direct consent (election) or indirect consent (parliament).


6 - Imperialism
If the State of Rights was a nation built through a pact of union of all citizens, with imperialism, instead, ideology developed as a new form of colonialism between the ninth and twentieth centuries.
Imperialism, the people who created the nation through the social compact, see themselves as a master of the world, the demiurge of all the backward nations.
I put in the imperialism to make a distinction between this form of ideology and to what will prevail, even if for a short time in the twentieth century: totalitarianism.
Because there is a difference between Imperialism and Totalitarianism.
Imperialism has not an exclusively negative accent, many nations have developed with Imperialism.
The ideology of imperialism is not only, therefore, to conquer, to influence and monopolize the politics and economics of other weaker nations, but also has a civilizing role, in some way.
And in terms of laws, it opens the way for what will later become the laws of racial superiority, because, let's remember, the "concentration camps" were not born in Nazi Germany.
In summary, the ideology of the laws of Imperialism is the fact that people were formed from the social pact, which they created their State, their Country, want to spread their legislative masterpiece in the most backward nations, dominating them.


7 - Totalitarianism
To speak of totalitarian ideology, I will only to consider the final part of the book by Hannah Arendt, "The Origins of Totalitarianism."
What Hannah Arendt reiterates this in her book is that totalitarianism and despotism are two totally different things.
If for some reason, Totalitarianism there might seem an evolution of despotism, in reality much of it has gone away.
What is the basis of the vision of Totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt is, before anything else, rationality.
It may seem a paradox, but totalitarianism is nothing more than the result, corrupted and taken to the extreme of "bureaucratic rationalism" and Ideology as the fundamental basis of the laws.
Totalitarism is an amazing evolution of rationalism, which escapes from the hands of man, evolve dramatically to become, paradoxically, irrational.
If despotism, that is still strongly linked to the "state of nature" was characterized by the absence of laws, Totalitarianism goes "beyond the law" as Arendt says.
The law in the Totalitarianism goes to the highest bureaucratic levels, before becoming "law-vapor", that is, a system of laws that exists but is not used for the purpose that had laws in all other forms of government existed previously.
In totalitarianism, the law is doubled, tripled, just as in institutions.
There are doubled institutions, parallel institutions, one state apparatus that splits into two remaining united at the same time.
For the Nazis, the duplication of the political structures was essential, and it consisted of the "union partition" (what a paradox!) between the State and the Party. For example, at the same time they had two ministries of the interior, the two ministries of Foreign Affairs, the two ministries of the economy and so on.
This was used by the Nazis to establish a regime of perpetual shift of political power, so that when a political office (eg a ministry) became problematic it could be replaced instantly with the duplicate one, demolish the problematic one and rebuild everything again, and then restore the duplication.
And all this was happening instantaneously, because the transfer of power was lightning, and this allowed the totalitarian regime to avoid problems of internal stability.
As you can see it is profoundly irrational despite being entirely rational for its purpose.
And this applies not only to the ministries and offices, but also for the laws, even the laws were duplicate, triplicate, there were laws on the same subject but they said totally different things, so that the citizens could no longer orientate themselves.
The purpose was just that, to lose orientation to the citizen through the vaporization of the law.
The only compass that the citizen had available was the totalitarian ideology, the cult of the leader. Faithfully and blindly follow the totalitarian leader, the only one who knows what needs to be done and how to do it.
Of course, in totalitarian states there is no freedom except one expressed and permitted by the party.
The totalitarian ideology will change depending on the totalitarian state taken into consideration, for example, Nazi ideology is based on the superiority of one race over all others, the only one who had the right to dominate the world.
Instead the Soviet era, was the supremacy of the Communist society, the only one that was truly free and able to guide the destiny of all nations of the world through this vision of freedom.


8 -Human Rights
And finally we come to the legislative masterpiece of our time, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
It is exactly the opposite of that on which it is based totalitarianism.
We could also define Human Rights as the directed evolution of the justice of the rule of law.
In a state that bases its principles in a constitution and that constitution, in turn, reflects the contractualism ideals and also liberal ideals we have the new interpretation of "State of rights".
Because, previously, the idea of ​​State of rights, was based only in a narrow way, the nation-state.
The new idea of State of Rights, insist on the ideology of human rights, is that man is a citizen of the world, and as such, all human beings and they must all have the same rights in the same way.
The law in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is, in fact "universal" because it is no longer simply a law of states, but it is a system of laws that wants to prefigure supra-national level.
Countries that have ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, accept and defend (in principle) the basic human rights such as freedom of speech, the right to vote, the right of association and so on.
This new perspective of the world opens the way for globalization in economic and social terms.

-----------------------
So is this.
Of course, this is all theoretical and explanatory level, as a possible project.
If we want to take this route of course we can discuss this and the effects to be given to these possible civics.
Otherwise everything will remain as it is, of course :(
And i repeat that, the fact that now is impossible to see the "empires" in the industrial age and beyond disappointed me . I would like more variety, and more depth.
I hope this helps! ^^
 
@fukinagashi86

Basically I would be in favor of your idea, but I quickly gave up the reading of your long article :sad:
Could you drop the "philosophical approach" and translate your ideas to the game's language (effects, bonuses)?
 
@fukinagashi86

Basically I would be in favor of your idea, but I quickly gave up the reading of your long article :sad:
Could you drop the "philosophical approach" and translate your ideas to the game's language (effects, bonuses)?

That's hard. Even more if the person isn't a pro in civ, nor in RAND. For example, I couldn't give a nice bonus to any civic because I'm still getting used to RAND. I'm not sure if that's his case though.


@fukinagashi86

I loved your ideas, but there are 2 points which I think may be confusing:

All options until and including Social Pact seem perfect. They bring new concepts to the game not yet covered by any other column.

But then comes Imperialism. It is confusing because of the Imperium civic in the Foreign Affairs Column. I don't know if this Imperialism fits as an ideology, mostly because I lack knowledge on the subject. Is it really an ideology of state? Or is it enough as a Foreign Affairs policy? What I'm sure is that both civics are too much for the idea of Imperialism.

Totalitarianism needed to come back, that's another great option.

And I can't see much difference in Social Pact and Human Rights, could you explain in more detail their difference?


The rest seems awesome.


What worries me in all this is that we are having great brainstormings around here, but the balance of the game always seems to be postponed.

For each new Wonder/Building/Civic Column/Resource/Non-Military Unit/Religion we increase the bonuses any player might have in economical perspective. The things we have done to reduce these bonuses were:
  • Limiting the number of wonders a city may have
  • Total Removal of Trade Routes (although with :commerce:-weaker version of it in Connectedness);
  • Increase in Maintenance Cost (although with the total removal of Inflation)
  • Recalcs in Tech :science: cost
  • Recalcs in Building Bonuses (especially avoiding % bonuses)

Maybe there are some more I forgot or haven't checked yet, but I guess these aren't enough to balance things out yet. This is something that we will have to work to make RAND not fast as hell (Nukes in 1700 AD) nor slow as hell (Cuirassiers in 1950 AD).



I'm not against the addition of new concepts in any category of the game, but with each addition it gets harder to balance things out. I have two proposals for this:

1- To increase the number of civic columns I think we should prioritize bonuses that aren't equivalent in nature to those of other existing columns (the :food:% of the Migration Column is a good example). Also, with the addition of new columns we could reduce the bonuses of all options on each of the old columns to avoid a snowball effect. This way we reduce the overall bonuses you must calculate because of many civic options, and we avoid bonuses stacking (as it was common in RAND).

2- In balancing things out we could try the economical stagnation approach that Afforess started with the increase in Maintenance Cost. The best way to halt one's development is to forbid expansion. Doing this by revolutions is a bad idea because some people play with it off, so those games would keep unbalanced.


My last proposal is to also discuss the Anarchy Length of Civic Changes. Some civics should take more turns of anarchy to change from/to, be it because of its column, or of specific options, or even from the jump (e.g. despotism to monarchy could have less anarchy turns then despotism to federalism).
 
I don't really agree that a set of ideology civics is missing, or necessary. I think a fair number of players are mistakenly confusing Civilization IV with a historical simulator. It is not. Players do not play to fight for their ideology, religion, cause, money, or other concerns; they play to win.

If there were hypothetical ideology civics, people would just choose whichever civics suited them best at the moment. That's contrary to the purpose of an ideology.

If you want Ideologies - go play Civ5. It's "Social Policies" are really ideologies by another name. You can't undo your choices there, and the effects are permanent.
 
I don't really agree that a set of ideology civics is missing, or necessary.

I think they are indeed missing, but I agree they aren't necessary yet.

I think a fair number of players are mistakenly confusing Civilization IV with a historical simulator. It is not. Players do not play to fight for their ideology, religion, cause, money, or other concerns; they play to win.

I have to disagree with this. Many players do play this game for many purposes besides winning. RPers are a great number of civ players, and indeed many players here do have prefered civics, civs, leaders, maps, options and many other stuff that don't necessarily lead them to victory, but to an enjoyable story. I don't know what you mean by historical simulator, but I'm sure civ can be categorized as a Story Simulator (that's based on history).

If there were hypothetical ideology civics, people would just choose whichever civics suited them best at the moment. That's contrary to the purpose of an ideology.

People already do that with all other civics. By moment you mean what they like more in their life's moment, or the best moment in the game? If the former then it's like what I said above about prefered options, if the latter then it's pure metagaming, in which city specialization is another factor. And how could that be contrary to the concept of an state ideology? Was Germany against the concept of State Ideology when it passed from the German Empire, through the Weimer Republic to Nazi Germany? In less then 50 years we can interpret they changed civics on that new column being proposed (and others, of course).

If you want Ideologies - go play Civ5. It's "Social Policies" are really ideologies by another name. You can't undo your choices there, and the effects are permanent.

That's rather a weak way of handling policies. Another poor mechanic of poor CiV. That's why I stayed with CIV.


IMO the only issue is that it's too much for now. We have many new things that are yet to be balanced and analyzed. We should consolidate more the old civic columns before adding new ones. But I think all 3 new proposed columns are great and should have a space in the game (Foreign Policy already has, and this is great).
 
I think a fair number of players are mistakenly confusing Civilization IV with a historical simulator. It is not. Players do not play to fight for their ideology, religion, cause, money, or other concerns; they play to win.

The game is what you make it to become as a modder and how we play it ;)

For me it was always a simulator, rather than merely a strategy game.
And I don't remember ever playing the game for winning, but always for enjoying it. If it was only about winning players would not give it up when it becomes boringly easy in the late game.

I agree, that we may not need (so badly) Ideology as a new civic category. Otherwise I agree with Spirictum.
 
The game is what you make it to become as a modder and how we play it ;)

For me it was always a simulator, rather than merely a strategy game.
And I don't remember ever playing the game for winning, but always for enjoying it. If it was only about winning players would not give it up when it becomes boringly easy in the late game.

I agree, that we may not need (so badly) Ideology as a new civic category. Otherwise I agree with Spirictum.

For a simulator, it wasn't doing a very good job at it ;)

There's other strategy games that do a much better job at being a 'simulation' for history and whatnot. It's not terrible at it no, but I wouldn't call it a Historic Simulation.

One of my friend's is pretty good with historical stuff... He ranted quite a bit about the Greek's Phalanax unique unit, but for the life of me I can't remember what he was saying about it. I do know he fell in love real fast with Realism Invictus because of the Greek's units, but he constantly griped about Civilization's historical inaccuracies. Doesn't play Civ much anymore, always preferred Rome: Total War and Napoleon, games like that. =/
 
I wouldn't call it historical simulator either.
I play it as an empire simulator. It's me.

Ah now that I can [somewhat] agree with ^^

Though I still think there are some games that perform that role better (Sometimes to almost tedious extents xD) CivIV I do think sort of fills that role. Mods push it into that role even more so :)
 
I think they are indeed missing, but I agree they aren't necessary yet.



I have to disagree with this. Many players do play this game for many purposes besides winning. RPers are a great number of civ players, and indeed many players here do have prefered civics, civs, leaders, maps, options and many other stuff that don't necessarily lead them to victory, but to an enjoyable story. I don't know what you mean by historical simulator, but I'm sure civ can be categorized as a Story Simulator (that's based on history).



People already do that with all other civics. By moment you mean what they like more in their life's moment, or the best moment in the game? If the former then it's like what I said above about prefered options, if the latter then it's pure metagaming, in which city specialization is another factor. And how could that be contrary to the concept of an state ideology? Was Germany against the concept of State Ideology when it passed from the German Empire, through the Weimer Republic to Nazi Germany? In less then 50 years we can interpret they changed civics on that new column being proposed (and others, of course).



That's rather a weak way of handling policies. Another poor mechanic of poor CiV. That's why I stayed with CIV.


IMO the only issue is that it's too much for now. We have many new things that are yet to be balanced and analyzed. We should consolidate more the old civic columns before adding new ones. But I think all 3 new proposed columns are great and should have a space in the game (Foreign Policy already has, and this is great).
More or less I agree with Spirictum. All in all, good ideas but a bit too complicated right now.
 
I don't really agree that a set of ideology civics is missing, or necessary. I think a fair number of players are mistakenly confusing Civilization IV with a historical simulator. It is not. Players do not play to fight for their ideology, religion, cause, money, or other concerns; they play to win.

If there were hypothetical ideology civics, people would just choose whichever civics suited them best at the moment. That's contrary to the purpose of an ideology.

If you want Ideologies - go play Civ5. It's "Social Policies" are really ideologies by another name. You can't undo your choices there, and the effects are permanent.

You have misunderstood.
Or you have not clearly read what I wrote.
For Idelogy I meant the content of the law, that is the "substance" of the law, separating it from its shape.
The question is not how do we organize to build a law, but how we understand the law as we interpret the idea of ​​law and its role in civilization, with all that implies of course (the contents of this law).
And I'm not talking about a story simulator, but to make AND more consistent with itself, deeper and perhaps more strategic.
I just wanted to contribute to this thread, so please be kind. :(

That's hard. Even more if the person isn't a pro in civ, nor in RAND. For example, I couldn't give a nice bonus to any civic because I'm still getting used to RAND. I'm not sure if that's his case though.


@fukinagashi86

I loved your ideas, but there are 2 points which I think may be confusing:

All options until and including Social Pact seem perfect. They bring new concepts to the game not yet covered by any other column.

But then comes Imperialism. It is confusing because of the Imperium civic in the Foreign Affairs Column. I don't know if this Imperialism fits as an ideology, mostly because I lack knowledge on the subject. Is it really an ideology of state? Or is it enough as a Foreign Affairs policy? What I'm sure is that both civics are too much for the idea of Imperialism.

Totalitarianism needed to come back, that's another great option.

And I can't see much difference in Social Pact and Human Rights, could you explain in more detail their difference?


The rest seems awesome.


What worries me in all this is that we are having great brainstormings around here, but the balance of the game always seems to be postponed.

For each new Wonder/Building/Civic Column/Resource/Non-Military Unit/Religion we increase the bonuses any player might have in economical perspective. The things we have done to reduce these bonuses were:
  • Limiting the number of wonders a city may have
  • Total Removal of Trade Routes (although with :commerce:-weaker version of it in Connectedness);
  • Increase in Maintenance Cost (although with the total removal of Inflation)
  • Recalcs in Tech :science: cost
  • Recalcs in Building Bonuses (especially avoiding % bonuses)

Maybe there are some more I forgot or haven't checked yet, but I guess these aren't enough to balance things out yet. This is something that we will have to work to make RAND not fast as hell (Nukes in 1700 AD) nor slow as hell (Cuirassiers in 1950 AD).



I'm not against the addition of new concepts in any category of the game, but with each addition it gets harder to balance things out. I have two proposals for this:

1- To increase the number of civic columns I think we should prioritize bonuses that aren't equivalent in nature to those of other existing columns (the :food:% of the Migration Column is a good example). Also, with the addition of new columns we could reduce the bonuses of all options on each of the old columns to avoid a snowball effect. This way we reduce the overall bonuses you must calculate because of many civic options, and we avoid bonuses stacking (as it was common in RAND).

2- In balancing things out we could try the economical stagnation approach that Afforess started with the increase in Maintenance Cost. The best way to halt one's development is to forbid expansion. Doing this by revolutions is a bad idea because some people play with it off, so those games would keep unbalanced.


My last proposal is to also discuss the Anarchy Length of Civic Changes. Some civics should take more turns of anarchy to change from/to, be it because of its column, or of specific options, or even from the jump (e.g. despotism to monarchy could have less anarchy turns then despotism to federalism).

The difference "substantial" between the idea of ​​the Social Pact and that of the Human Rights concerns the idea of ​​law.
In the idea of the social contract, the universality of the law, there is no truly universal because it remains within the old idea of the state (the nation state).
And this is reflected in the same consideration that man has of himself: there is freedom but only within the state. Everything that comes out of the idea of ​​state becomes problematic, dark and mysterious.
Take the discovery of the new world, those same philosophers who built the social pact wondered if the "savages" of the new world or not they were human beings.
The law, though universal, was not universally the same for all.
This is important because it helps us understand how, over time, advanced civilizations it is compared not only with other civilizations in the developing world, but above all with the same idea of the law, which of course was not so universal.

This is the difference between the social contract and human rights.
In Human Rights system, the law becomes truly universal, it becomes supranational, born in the League of Nations and then in UN in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, its "substantiality "becomes, in power, universal because it is the basis of all the contemporary constitutionalism. Is the new humanism.



The problem of balancing will always be there, and there is already now.
Some civics right now are impossible to maintain, because they are too expensive and the AI always and carefully avoids them.
 
You have misunderstood.
Or you have not clearly read what I wrote.
For Idelogy I meant the content of the law, that is the "substance" of the law, separating it from its shape.
The question is not how do we organize to build a law, but how we understand the law as we interpret the idea of ​​law and its role in civilization, with all that implies of course (the contents of this law).
And I'm not talking about a story simulator, but to make AND more consistent with itself, deeper and perhaps more strategic.

The interpretation of law is ideology, so I feel I understood your post. If you disagree, perhaps you could write a more clear explanation.


I just wanted to contribute to this thread, so please be kind. :(

I am a scientist and as a result, I tend to write in a factual, neutral tone. This tone of writing can be perceived as arrogant or aggressive, when in reality I am simply stating the facts. I value every contribution to the discussion here. Unless I explicitly state that I want to end discussion, assume I am happy with the discourse.

The difference "substantial" between the idea of ​​the Social Pact and that of the Human Rights concerns the idea of ​​law.
In the idea of the social contract, the universality of the law, there is no truly universal because it remains within the old idea of the state (the nation state).
And this is reflected in the same consideration that man has of himself: there is freedom but only within the state. Everything that comes out of the idea of ​​state becomes problematic, dark and mysterious.
Take the discovery of the new world, those same philosophers who built the social pact wondered if the "savages" of the new world or not they were human beings.
The law, though universal, was not universally the same for all.
This is important because it helps us understand how, over time, advanced civilizations it is compared not only with other civilizations in the developing world, but above all with the same idea of the law, which of course was not so universal.

This is the difference between the social contract and human rights.
In Human Rights system, the law becomes truly universal, it becomes supranational, born in the League of Nations and then in UN in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, its "substantiality "becomes, in power, universal because it is the basis of all the contemporary constitutionalism. Is the new humanism.

I am deeply skeptical that there are any universal human rights. I don't believe there are any inalienable human rights.

The problem of balancing will always be there, and there is already now.
Some civics right now are impossible to maintain, because they are too expensive and the AI always and carefully avoids them.

Can you explain which civics you think are impossible to maintain?
 
With the addition of the Warrior Caste civic, should we still keep the +2 XP to new units from the Caste civic? I think the combination is in fact too powerful for the early game. I think we can remove the XP and lower the GP penalty; I think -33% (instead of -50%) would be fair. What do you think?
 
Top Bottom